Legal Opinion

Gage & Co. v. Parry

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided October 20, 1886PublishedCited by 16 opinions

Appeal from, Polio Circuit Court. The defendants Mary M. Morris and Samuel L. Humplireys were partners, doing business in the city of Des Moines. They were indebted to defendants M. N. Baker, L. H. Jones and I. J. Harrod, and defendant R. M. Briscoe was surety on a note given by them to a bank. On the twenty-seventh day of June, 1881, they executed to Baker, Jones and Harrod chattel mortgages to secure the debts they were owing them severally.

Read the full summary

Appeal from, Polio Circuit Court. The defendants Mary M. Morris and Samuel L. Humplireys were partners, doing business in the city of Des Moines. They were indebted to defendants M. N. Baker, L. H. Jones and I. J. Harrod, and defendant R. M. Briscoe was surety on a note given by them to a bank. On the twenty-seventh day of June, 1881, they executed to Baker, Jones and Harrod chattel mortgages to secure the debts they were owing them severally. These mortgagés covered their entire stock of merchandise. They also assigned to Briscoe all the accounts growing out of their business. This…

1Opinion of the CourtReed, J.

The first question which we will consider is whether the chattel mortgages to Baker, Jones and Harrod, and the assignment of the accounts to Briscoe, amounted, in effect, to an assignment for the benefit of creditors. If they did. the assignmeiit is clearly invalid, for the reason that it was not made for the benefit of all of the creditors in proportion'to the amount of their respective claims. Code, § 2115. As stated above, those instruments were all executed at the same time. They covered all the assets of the firm of Morris & Humphreys, and that firm was insolvent when the instruments…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. Fromme v. JonesSupreme Court of Iowa · 1862
  2. Day v. GriffithSupreme Court of Iowa · 1863
  3. Perry v. VezinaSupreme Court of Iowa · 1884

3Cited by16 opinions

  1. Davis v. SchwartzSupreme Court of the United States · 1895
  2. Gilbert v. McCorkleIndiana Supreme Court · 1887
  3. South Branch Lumber Co. v. OttSupreme Court of the United States · 1892
  4. Davis v. ScottNebraska Supreme Court · 1887
  5. Cribb v. Hibbard, Spencer, Bartlett & Co.Wisconsin Supreme Court · 1890

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API